Dry-run closing a repository task and return the full write plan without performing writes. Use it to inspect planned changes before applying them.
Dry-run a repo close-task operation and return the full write plan without executing any writes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| gotcha | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| rewrites | No | ||
| hotUpdate | No | ||
| discoveries | No | ||
| escalations | No | ||
| taskLogEntry | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: nothing is executed and a full write plan is returned. It omits auth requirements and whether the plan output format matters, but the safety profile is clear and non-contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the key constraint with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys the essential contract (plan returned, no writes) and, with no output schema, the return value is at least characterized conceptually. But nine undocumented parameters and no annotations leave real gaps for a tool whose inputs likely mirror close_repo_task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Nine parameters at 0% schema description coverage and the description mentions none of them, not even the required repo or agent_id. An agent must guess what gotcha, rewrites, hotUpdate, discoveries, escalations, or taskLogEntry mean, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (dry-run) and resource (repo close-task operation) and defines the outcome: a write plan with no writes executed. It distinguishes itself from close_repo_task by implication, though it never names the executing sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the preview-before-commit use case ('without executing any writes'), which is enough for an agent to infer it precedes close_repo_task. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.